This post was originally published in MedPage Today by CME Coalition Senior Advisor, Andy Rosenberg.

I am writing on behalf of the Continuing Medical Education (CME) Coalition, a collection of provider organizations and other supporters of CME. Its member organizations provide, manage, and support the development of healthcare continuing education programs that impact more than 500,000 physicians, nurses, and pharmacists annually.

A week ago, MedPage Today published an infographic on funding for CME programs, labeling the long-standing practice of drug manufacturers contributing to certain CME courses the "Dark Money of Medicine." At best, the graphic presents a one-sided, cherry-picked set of data that fails to acknowledge the significant protections in place that shield CME programs from bias. At worst, the entire 'Slippery Slope' series seeks to undermine CME's role as an essential tool for doctors to hone their craft and stay up-to-date on cutting-edge treatment techniques.

When we at the CME Coalition saw the 'Slippery Slope' articles published in MedPage Today and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last weekend, we were shocked to see that the writers had taken such a strong stance against CME -- particularly as MedPage Today has long been a reliable outlet for CME news and developments. Between the articles and infographic, the commentary's harsh and unfair tone portrayed the education of physicians like some type of criminal enterprise.

To be clear, it is not.

In fact, CME is among the most valuable -- if unheralded -- components of our healthcare system and has a demonstrably proven track record of improving patient outcomes and saving lives. Through the comprehensive courses offered as a part of CME, millions of physicians and other healthcare professionals are informed and educated on subjects that matter most to patients -- from improving treatment techniques that have existed for decades to utilizing the very latest medical science and technology. In short, for as long as there has been institutionalized medical instruction, CME has been nothing short of instrumental in improving health outcomes and creating a stronger and more innovative healthcare environment.

Unfortunately, your 'Slippery Slope' articles largely ignore the critical role that CME -- including courses supported by industry through independent grants -- plays, and glosses over the extensive protections put in place by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to prohibit commercial bias or involvement in the development of curriculum or selection of participants. These protections that make up ACCME's Standards for Commercial Support are specifically designed to mitigate bias and generate a high degree of transparency, and are among the most restrictive limitations against stakeholder conflict of interest in any context imaginable.CME courses are not held in some dark corner, nor do they cater to physicians looking to peddle dangerous drugs as some at MedPage Today would have you believe. The process is actually quite the opposite. Before any presentation is made, a presenter is required to disclose any relationships he or she may have with the medical industry. And far from being a secretive program designed to sell drugs, these courses promote the education of healthcare professionals of all types and are generally open for anyone to attend.

While the writers of 'Slippery Slope' may have succeeded in weaving a salacious narrative, they offer a dishonest rendering of history. In response to your piece on testosterone therapy, the truth is that some CME courses cited the efficacy of the treatment in a variety of contexts because that was the science at the time. It was only earlier this year that a scientific consensus began to emerge against testosterone therapy-- although even a cursory review of MedPage Todayarchives from 2011-2015demonstrates how diffuse the opinions on this issue truly were -- and are, even today. Attacking past CME courses -- and more importantly, the character of the professionals who administer them -- based on the discoveries of subsequently revised science is akin to criticizing 20th century astronomers for considering Pluto a planet.

We understand that bias can come in any number of shapes and sizes. It has to be considered in every industry, and while we can never eliminate it entirely, we can ensure that it does not discredit our work. The current ACCME firewalls provide the necessary protection to separate education from salesmanship, and the value of industry-funded CME courses has proven that the purpose and impact of these programs is clear -- provider education and improved patient outcomes. And if MedPage Today can be partially funded by drug manufacturers' advertising dollars yet maintain the independence to sharply criticize them, it seems only reasonable to assume that medical professionals can remain objective and science-based in their instruction.

There's a reason that CME is required of physicians in 45 states and the District of Columbia -- it works. It helps doctors diagnose patients and encourages the use of novel treatments that reduce pain and recovery time. It provides an opportunity for healthcare providers, old and new, to renew their skills in procedures that may only affect a handful of patients in the life of their practice. And most importantly, it allows physicians to improve the care of their patients, to better understand diseases, and to continue refining the skills and knowledge that will ultimately save lives.

We should be careful to criticize such a powerful tool in our healthcare arsenal, or to be one-sided in attacking its source of funds without acknowledging the important anti-bias protections that are in place. Otherwise, we may indeed find ourselves falling down a real 'slippery slope' -- one in which there are drastically fewer options for continuing medical education and patients bear the ultimate cost of a less informed community of physicians.